Read all the preceding posts again - others have mentioned
the P30 park and the proximity of other parking options (I
have no idea myself), the time of the day, the opportunites
for the husband to move the car.

Congratulations to the Charltons on their new arrival. An
unusual outcome for the Warden (actually can he just be
'officer'? Wardens run San Quentin). Majority support for
bylaws, rules and regulations means we're happy to comply. No
more criticism of the System, no more moaning at the bar.

What do you mean most posts have summed up the main points
(meaning your points)? Plenty have supported this
woman.

What a smug, mean-spirited attitude to this pair. Sometimes
people have other things on their minds than parking! Not
everyone can think straight when going through something like
that - and nor should they be judged for putting the birth of
a baby before anything else. [Abridged]

- they arrived at 6.30am so must have had a wide choice of
parking to use, therefore using a P30 was pretty
silly/careless.
- the husband had opportunities to move the vehicle (sounds
like they were there for quite a while).

When our child arrived I managed to drive my partner to the
hospital, park temporarily near the the main doors and get
her inside and taken by staff, go out and park my vehicle in
a decent park (I had no idea how long I would be there), and
then get back and be with her the whole time. It's not rocket
science.

After seeing all these points made by others from the article
it seems poor journalism by the ODT - a bit of sensationalism
really. Come on ODT, we're better than that in Otago.

We all know there isn't much parking around the hospital
area, midwifes sometimes even mention the parking situation,
and many of us have had tickets there. With the amount in her
hand I'd say they had been there quite a while, is that the
2-3 days worth (the standard time you have to stay in with a
c section). If they wiped these then how many others would
they have to wipe, investigate etc. all at the taxpayers'
cost. I've been in similar situations and what I tend to do
is put as many of those parking dockets on the windscreen as
I can.

A C-section doesn't take 6 hours so I'm sure he could have
shot down at some point to put some money in. At 6.30 am the
parking wardens haven't even started for the day, or the day
staff,s o I'm sure he could have got a park right by the door
and helped her in. I rember saying to my partner that he
needed to put some money in, but that wasnt his main concern,
what's a ticket when you're getting a baby, no matter if they
come naturally or by C section...rules are rules

. . . should build a pay-on-exit car park. For many people
visiting the hospital they don't know whether they are going
to be 30 minutes or an hour and a-half. The times I am there
I don't want that nagging parking ticket issue in my head. I
want to listen, and converse with the people I am seeing,
whether a specialist or a dying friend. Pay and Display
parking is not really compatible with a hospital, and this
kind of thing will continue to happen until a different
system is put in place.

Parking on a P30 when you are going in to have a baby is just
asking for it though.

It's a bit like the Police letting us know, that they would
ticket us for doing 5kmph over the 50 speed limit - down from
what many unofficially knew used to be 10kmph 'we know you
will be breaking the law as usual, but we won't let you do it
as much'.

Where should the line get drawn? I firmly believe there is no
need for anger over this, from either side. If there had been
evidence of paying some money, making an effort, the Council
have already said - the fee would have been waived.

How many, if this ticket is let off, will drive to the
hospital and simply make no effort to move and cite this
case?

Everyone arriving at the hospital, has some degree of
emergency or potential trauma going on. So, if we know we
have unavoidably broken some laws, we need to know, we are
very lucky to have a process we can go through to even ask
for the ticket to be waived. As someone with a disability
card, even having one of those makes it very hard to get
parking close to the hospital.

I have had 2 emergency C sections so I understand the serious
nature of the process, let alone even just giving birth. But
I am inclined to go with the Council on this one, I'm finding
more people demanding and expecting things is disconcerting
and not the way for our city in the future.

If the ratepayers were listened to about issues we had been
asked about, maybe there would be less of a feeling we have
to get angry to be heard in a reasonable way. Btw - to the
person complaining about losing parks due to proposed cycle
lanes - we need the cycle lanes. A parking building of some
sort in the area, may be a solution to consider, as there is
majority of time, a shortage of parks. [abridged]

This is petty bureaucracy at its worst. For the sake of
a $12 fine (or thereabouts), the DCC parking division has
made itself look heartless and officious. You can't put
a value on bad PR - and this is what it looks like. If people
who are in the midst of a personal crisis such as an
emergency Caesarean can't be cut some slack, then who can -
and when? An appalling, mean-spirited policy that needs
amending. How inhumane are things going to get just so the
income stream doesn't get interrupted?

Shame on the DCC for being so tight and so uncompromising. A
very bad look.

The DCC appears completely heartless and unwaveringly focused
on revenue-gathering. They lack empathy and any shred of
common sense by insisting that this parking fine is paid. I
encountered a similar situation, when visiting from out of
town a couple of years ago. I was similarly stung with a $12
parking fine, when parked over the time I'd paid for on a
meter on the street directly outside the hospital.

I wrote a letter requesting a fine waiver because at the time
I was visiting a dying relative. What I thought was going to
be a short visit to say hello, turned into a very long one as
the doctors suddenly proposed the possibility of electing for
a high risk surgery or continue on being comfortably
medicated until death. This was a highly emotional time for
the family, and supporting and comforting my relative
logically took over the need to top-up a parking meter.

I received a similar statement back from the DCC stating
"circumstances do not allow for the fines to be waived." I
wrote back stating I was unhappy but paid the fine, because I
couldn't be bothered engaging in argument over $12.

I would be interested to hear from the DCC what circumstances
allow for fines to be waived? What constitutes an
'emergency'? Logic has to be applied. Given the
circumstances, would any fair-minded road-user begrudge Shawn
for parking over the permitted time limit? Of course not. As
such the fine should be remitted.

DCC is responsible to, and representative of, ratepayers, ie
property owners. Tenants are citizens who are not district
ratepayers. They may pay through rent, but that goes to
landlords, not the council. We have universal franchise and
local government is ideally responsible to a community,
ratepayers or not. It may just be an argument over language
of inclusion. I hope this hasnt made you regret putting the
question. It's a long way from the Parkers.

I'm curious as to why you feel there is a difference between
renting, or paying rates directly? I'm not attacking your
standpoint, I'm just genuinely curious.

Mortgage + rates = just slightly less than I paid for almost
every rental I have had in Dunedin (excluding ones I lived in
10+ years ago, but with inflation adjusted it probably would
also be similar). Rent paid never went into the upkeep
or maintenance of those properties - almost all of those
rentals were in horrible condition, with absolutely minimal
repairs, no insulation etc. So as far as I can tell, most
renters pay the rates on the property, only included in their
rent as opposed to paying the council directly. So I am
curious as to why you feel 'direct ratepayers" have an
entitlement over others.

I completely agree Tom H. She should not have any more rights
than anyone else.

However, if there is an emergency, whether that is a birth,
accident or sickness, we should be able to rush down to the
hospital, and park in a convenient location without fear of
ridiculous parking fines.

The fact that there is no long term, public parking anywhere
close to the hospital is a joke. I may be wrong, but I think
most the parks anywhere near the vicinity of the hospital are
the most expensive parks in town, most with an hour parking
limit, which is just not realistic if the motorists are at
the hospital. Going off my previous experiences of hospitals,
your parking limit's up before you have even been seen.

Could her partner have moved the car? Maybe, but maybe he
didn't want to miss the birth of his child. Maybe he was
terrified of something going drastically wrong (very common
fears, childbirth is scary!). I hate the thought of a new dad
losing his partner or child while he was out feeding the
meter, or driving round for half an hour looking for a
suitable park close enough to "pop out to top up the meter
every half hour"

We need to give our newest citizens a break, not take the
opportunity to fine them for arriving inconveniently.

There are plenty of parks around the hospital at 6:30 that
aren't a P30. If her partner had time to feed the meter, then
I am sure he had time to drive the car across the road to the
pay and display parking.

And great idea about removing the cycle lane, the hospital
won't be so busy if more cyclists die on the road will it!
Driving is a privilege, not a right, just like parking your
car on public roads.

I stand next to you on this for this as it's a Women's and
Children's health issue. Not only does it cause unneccessary
pain and anxiety but also takes away the unique community
feel of support Dunedin has. All they need to do is change
the system so people can't abuse it by having a letter to the
council from the midwife. Kia kaha!

Let's give our women and children a break! We have ALL been
through delivery at some point in our lives.

Since the DCC seems incapable of making an intelligent
decision here this is how you fix this situation:

Send this poor mother a sincere (if you actually possess this
ability) letter apologising for the disgusting way in which
she and her partner have been treated by an overzealous
department that appears to be completely immune to the way
the real world works. Accompany this with a complete waiver
of any fines occurred and a gift basket of some description
paid for out of Mr Shea's (unnecessary) salary.

As someone whose family has been through the emergency
caesarian proceedure twice I can tell you with some degree of
certainty that the absolute last thing you are considering is
feeding the bloody parking meter. This is exactly why there
is a process in place for having these ridiculously expensive
infringments removed.

Also as a side note, if parking is so precious around this
area that fines for people undergoing emergency surgery will
not be revoked then maybe, just maybe, it is an idiotic plan
to remove parking for a bleeding cycle lane?! Or does the DCC
believe that this lady should have ridden a children's toy to
the hospital?

The action by the Dcc parking is downright disgusting.
These people and the Dcc in general are heartless. This
action is what you would expect from a third world
city. Oops I was forgetting that is what we are, except
we are no longer a city but a backwater town. No wonder that
Dunedin is dying with the yahoos that are running the town
hall.